11/13/2012

The sex scandal that led to CIA Director David Petraeus’ downfall widened Tuesday with word the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is under investigation for thousands of alleged “inappropriate communications” with another woman involved in the case.

Even as the FBI prepared a timeline for Congress about the investigation that brought to light Petraeus’ extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed that the Pentagon had begun an internal investigation into emails from Gen. John Allen to a Florida woman involved in the case.

Allen succeeded Petraeus as the top American commander in Afghanistan in July 2011, and his nomination to become the next commander of U.S. European Command and the commander of NATO forces in Europe has now been put on hold, as the scandal seemed certain to ensnare another acclaimed military figure.

I fear we are losing sight of the main issues: what can Petraeus tell us about Benghazi? He traveled there personally after the attack and filed a report. Even Dianne Feinstein seems interested. And what did Obama know about his affair? Seems like the FBI has known this stuff for quite a while. Obama didn’t??

Plus, new questions are emerging all the time: how did Broadwell seem to know the attack related to a secret prison? What did Obama know about that? Was he conducted enhanced interrogation at secret prisons?

P.S. Everyone knows that people with access to our most classified information can’t be involved in these affairs. It makes them subject to blackmail and puts our national security at risk.

Unless, of course, they are a Democrat president, in which case they can also obstruct justice and commit perjury, and come out of it a loved national figure who can help another Democrat win re-election.

These scandals will make it so much easier for the Dems to cut the military and defense budget to the bone because, you know, who can trust these “folks” anymore. Out there awastin’ our tax dollars on wine women and song.

But seriously, too many top generals, commanders and admirals are being displaced and replaced within way too short a period of time for it not to look really really odd. Really odd. Do not like the feel of this at all.

So the Ambassador transits to no-man’s-land to secretly deal with Turkey Libyan ground-to-air missiles and other misplaced weaponry, the envoy salutes Ambassador’s assassins on exit, and the off the dude cause he knows too much and anyway is just a bagman by the guy in Cairo who isn’t quite an ally.

Now everyone who knows anything and can’t be relied on because they don’t have a chip installed in the brain stem are systematically destroyed.

WASHINGTON — Both Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen intervened in the same nasty child custody battle involving Natalie Khawam, the “psychologically unstable” twin sister of Jill Kelley, whose bombshell claims of being threatened by Petraeus’ lover led to the top spy’s resignation last week, the Post has learned….

Now the thing is, being real people, none of this can really be a coincidence.

According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

So you could say maybe they weren’t Libyan attackers, but maybe prisoners from before.

There is no confirmation from anywhere else that there were any prisoners. No accounts from the survivors have been made public.

Now we get Paula Broadwell’s version, ridiculous and almost certainly not true, that the three prisoners were being held at the mission (isn’t that what she says?) and that was the reason for the attack.

So now we know:

1) She has some sources at the CIA or elsewhere who would have some plausible claim to knowledge
about Benghazi.

2) That source or those sources is lying to her.

Lying sources of course would explain anger at Jill Kelley, to the extent it existed.

And what did Obama know about his affair? Seems like the FBI has known this stuff for quite a while. Obama didn’t??

According to a WSJ article linked in this column,null the White House and Congress were not notified because “federal agents are obligated by Justice Department policy not to share information with Congress and the White House on criminal investigations until they are completed.”

That might have been the plan a few months ago, but I can’t see Susan Rice now being nominated and confirmed, not without a full explanation of the bad intelligence the CIA gave her. John Kerry may be off too now. Maybe it’s being leaked in hopes it happens.

25.Putting John Kerry in charge of the DoD makes about as much sense as putting Benedict Arnold in command of the Continental Army.
Comment by Dave Surls

Well, it depends on what the aim is. If the aim is to make the US military a toothless paper tiger it is a good idea. How many people want to be in the military under “Hilp uss in Erak Vietnam war hero US troops are reminiscent of Genghis Khan” Kerry?

23. A pretty good summary of commonly known or accepted facts, a little bit behind the headlines, and doesn’t look really biased against the military.

It has, of course, significant omissions and inaccuracies but it also has a few things other things do not have, like it’s critical of something Paula Broadwell wrote.

giving interviews while running six-minute miles at age 60.

No, he just turned 60 last Wednesday. He was 55 or 56 when he started running together with PB in 2008. Paula Broadwell turned 40 last Friday

(He consented to be interviewed only during his morning jog, if she could keep up with him. She thought it would easy since she had 20 years on him and she was really fit, but it wasn’t so easy for her.)

Another mistake by Mother Jones is they seem to think the classified information on her computer came from the CIA – but it was military information dating from her time in Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011. (I read the stories carefully enough to parse this out)
.

There are 4 dead public servants that have been put on the back burner because of this sorted crap.

I never thought Petraeus was all that. He was the architect of COIN nonsense, put rules of engagement in place that got good men and women killed needlessly, groveled before the enemy to no good end and pandered to the Jew hatred of the Muslim world. He told successive administrations these wars were doable when they are clearly not. He had to know this was a fool’s errand and yet he told them what they wanted to hear. May he burn in hell and be confronted with those good people he got killed for nothing forever.

Ultimately he is a liar. He told leaders the things they wanted to hear because it advanced his career. And once you go down the road of not caring about truth what’s another lie, be it to your underlings or your boss or your wife.

Further, this should remind us republics do not deal well with long-term unending wars. It breeds dishonesty and deceit, and it wrecks bonds of family. These men are the leaders of these wars. Imagine the grunts and their families that are dealing with this stress without those resources.War should be avoided and limited because it’s corrosive to truth , our ideals and our values.

“No, if she had lying sources in September, who obviously also would not be people she never heard of before, she could easily have had the same lying sources back in April or May. That’s what I mean.”

Sammy – If that’s what you meant, why didn’t you say so? What did her sources lie to her about in April and May to make her angry at Kelley?

Mostly, as this sordid story unfolds, I am very concerned about how an already demoralized military in Afghanistan is reacting to this. Enlisted men and officers are seeing the utter hypocrisy of those charged with leading (or having led) them in war as well as setting the ultimate example of honorable behavior. And while the behavior may not be all that out of the ordinary, the hypocrisy is always worse the higher up in rank and power it occurs.

“…how do you explain the testimony that Petraeus gave, when it contradicted the testimony that the CIA station chief in Libya had told them, when it contradicted what Panetta had briefed, and what everybody at the time was saying. Now, the Broadwell disclosure that we just saw is important not because people are now getting all upset about it, because it might have disclosed secret information, but because it might tell us what might have been a motive for the CIA to disguise, to lie about, or to cover up what was happening in Benghazi.

If they were holding prisoners, either the administration or the White House knew about it in contradiction of the executive order Obama had done when he came into office, or the CIA and the people in Libya were holding it from the administration, in which case it’s a breach of something and it could be serious. But it gives you one of the many motives why Petraeus’ testimony was so at odds at what everybody at the time was saying and knew. And the fact that Petraeus resigns with a week to go before he is supposed to testify, will not be there as many people on the Hill have already said, we have got to have him there, including Dianne Feinstein, I’m sure, being a Democrat and, therefore, being obviously nonpartisan about this they’re going to want to know where did this testimony come from. “

The porisoner’s matter, ioif theer were any there and they were trying to hide it for any reaosn, would only give amotive for trying to avoid diuscussing any of the details of that night, but not to claim that it had all started with a spontaneous protest about a video in imitation of the one in Egypt, which was also spontaneous.

It could be the idea of having prisoners that could be the lie, or it could something somebody is attempting to avoid becoming public.

It seems to me, that there are quite a few women in society that think the rules don’t apply to them now that they are “liberated”; or why would they be getting involved with married men, and hurting their “sisters”?
Aren’t there enough single guys to jump into bed with?

Everyone knows that people with access to our most classified information can’t be involved in these affairs. It makes them subject to blackmail and puts our national security at risk.

Well, that’s just it: when I was investigated for a security clearance, I was asked very specifically about adultery; had I answered affirmatively — and I was strapped into the infernal machine at the time — the subsequent questions would have concerned whether my wife was aware of such indiscretions. They didn’t care quite as much whether an applicant had had an affair as to whether he was blackmailable due to it. (I’m certain that they would have cared if someone had a tendency to fornicate any woman in a cute little thong.)

It’s amazing how [insert slang word for vagina here] can make smart men so stupid.

He’s described himself as a “Rockefeller Republican,” and his wife works for the new consumer-affairs initiative created by the current White House. IOW, there’s plenty of liberalism in the guy and those around him. As such, I imagine his heart goes pitter-patter when the CIA actively recruits members of the GLBT crowd on its website, and is a participant at Gay Pride events in DC.

I wonder if Islamofascist terrorists are aware of such things, of this scandal, of the way Obama and Company have responded to the consulate killings, and are chortling at all of this? Hell, it’s possible they’re even embarrassed for us.

Well, JD, for one thing a high portion of folks in the GLBT crowd lean left, so the way they may perceive the US, other societies and the issue of national security can be prone to lots of moral relativism. IOW, “the Islamofascists of today, and Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan of the past have blood on their hands, but we Americans do, too! So he who is without sin, cast the first stone!”

If you don’t sense that the origins of such recruiting tactics are infused with the same politically-correct nonsense that apparently has been, and is, roiling the US military, then let me introduce you to Nidal Hasan.

“The license was turned in to the police by a jogger with the Maryland Park Police, but was initially discovered in Washington D.C. According to a Park Police spokesman, the park police notified the FBI’s Washington Field Office and will hold it for 90 days.”

. . .

“Broadwell is believed to be staying at her brother’s residence in the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood in Washington, which is near Rock Creek Park. The park extends from central Washington into Maryland and is popular with runner and cyclists.”

Does this whole sordid situation strike anyone as similar to the “Profumo Affair” in the 60’s? Pretty women abound and men in sensitive government positions going estrogen-stupid on several levels. The old KGB were wizards at setting up a “honey trap”. Perhaps the current bunch are just as crafty.

The last time I had a security interview for a security clearance, the interviewer spent 20 minutes trying to pin me down as to exactly how much I drank. The frustration being that I didn’t/don’t drink much, and figuring out if it averaged one drink a week or a half drink a week took half the time.

Mark – if you see somebody wearing a cardigan sweater, do you make value judgments about them? Skinny jeans? Sipping a latte? Eating sashimi? Holding hands in public?

JD, let’s just say that when it comes to people attending a Gay Pride event, most of them — not all, but MOST — probably (again, probably) aren’t exactly going to be socially-culturally geared to traditional ways of thinking. They’re a bit less likely to adhere to traditional (some will call it “old fogey”) values.

A booth with the CIA logo affixed to it and set up at an event where rainbow flags are fluttering in the wind is analogous to WeighWatchers sponsoring an exhibit at a food festival.

Just a hunch.

Meanwhile, another reason why I love modern-day liberalism, why the joys of political correctness in the 21st century fills my heart with happiness.

therightperspective.org, November 2012:

Government officials in Brussels, Belgium banned Wednesday a popular Christmas tree exhibit out of concerns that the local Muslim population found it “offensive.” An “electronic winter tree,” will take the place of the traditional Christmas Tree and Nativity scene at the city center of Grand Place, reports Brussels News.

City councilwoman Bianca Debaets believes a “misplaced argument” over religious sensitivities has moved Brussels to put up the light sculpture. She points to the fact that it display not be referred to “Christmas” in any way to make her point. “I suspect that the reference to the Christian religion was the decisive factor” in replacing the tree, she told reporters. “For a lot of people who are not Christians, the tree there is offensive to them.”

Many cities in Belgium have thriving Muslim populations. A 2008 study showed Muslims make up 25.5-percent of the population of Brussels, 3.9-percent of Flanders, and 4.0-percent of Wallonia.

Two Muslims elected to the Brussels city council last month have vowed to turn Belgium into a Muslim state based on Sharia law, as previously reported.

^ The only solace I get out of this is that those folks in a northern European society — which generally means a place that’s automatically quite liberal — who are among the most foolishly liberal will be smacked the hardest when a truly — truly — old-fashioned culture starts to impose its values on the populace.

heard Hewitt interview Jake Tapper about a new book he wrote just now out about one outpost and the battle for it in Afghanistan. There are many good people out there who deserve better officers, a better CIC, and more appreciative citizens

I am sure you can find it looking up the author through the Amazon widget over there to the R

Mark, the Flemish of Belgium are really getting pretty fed up. The right wing parties there are getting increasingly popular. Over the last two times I was in Belgium, the amount of right wing political tracts I saw had really increased. A lot of it is reactionary to the increased muslim immigrant population.

SPQR, it’s quite astonishing what’s going on throughout the modern industrialized world (I won’t say “Western” because I include nations like Japan in this), both here and elsewhere. It’s a case of bad fiction coming to life.

I rarely, if ever, disagree much or at all with people who generally lean right, such as JD, and consider them fairly down-to-earth and reliable. But if, in the context of that (ie, here and not at, say, the huffingtonpost), I have to argue about the oddness and absurdity of the CIA singling out and recruiting amongst gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered, then my sense is that the “slippery slope” of just a few years ago is fast becoming an avalanche.

I think there’s too much exposure of the Benfghazi mess now and the surreal sexcapades involving key people now makes a press conference by the president unavoidable. I’m curious how he’ll spin it. The more they try to cover, the more that leaks out.

This is almost a win-win for the Obama Administration. First, it distracts the media from covering the substance of Benghazi. Second, it publicly disparages military leadership, thereby elevating Obama’s stature as C-in-C.

I thought that yesterday, DRJ, but not today (with re to Benghazi). Even prominent Dems and MSM outlets have serious questions. Too much leaking out, and too many coincidences to ignore. Also, a contradictory timeline. And. Mostly, Petraeus lied (not under oath) about the video….

What important questions? Is there nothing more important than whether or not a member of the Executive Branch is doing untoward things with his executive branch, unless that person happens to be Bill Clinton?

These are important questions, not shiny objects meant to distract us from Benghazi, the fiscal cliff, food stamps, the rising unemployment rate, the pension crisis…..

You can’t excuse lapses of conduct in an intelligence/national security context and should not in others because of the potential for corruption.

Blackmail can cow integrity, but the usual complications also apply: paramours winkle out information from the unguarded lover; paramours take advantage, curry or call in favors, or leverage advancement in workplace position, salary, or social connections to bring themselves wealth and standing. Hearts are foolish, they can be fooled. The only protection is to keep that out of the equation.

Jealousy, instability of emotion and action, an personal ambition can wreck havoc on discipline and security. Love/sexual obsession can give access where there was none before, and that access can be misused.

Broadwell has a security clearance in her reserve position but she took documents from secure government buildings. Even if she had clearance to see the materials, she might never have had real access but for her connection and attachment to Petraeus.

Her anonymous poison pen campaign extended not just to creepmail to Kelley, but numerous high-ranking military officials, including Allen, warning them against Kelley, and demonstrated that Petraeus had attached himself to a vindictive, passive-aggressive, turf protecting overly attached girlfriend whose “protection” is ironically the trigger of the investigation that resulted in his resignation.

I think I still have a hand dipped Clinton cigar from the 1990s around here somewhere. They were selling like hotcakes and someone gave me one as a gag. A Denver TV station ran a segment with an inappropriate photoshopped cover of Broadwell’s biography of Petraeus, changing the title from “All In” to All Up In My Snatch” with the bold words in small type. I have not been to the supermarket to check out what type of alien abduction love baby stories the Enquirer and Star are running yet, but I’m glad nobody is distracted by the squid ink and squirrels.

Jill Kelley threw numerous catered parties and ran out of money. She also knew Arab diplomats.

Somebody should tell Prince Bandar that if he wants spies, he ought to give them enough money to function properly!! But then, the sponsors of terrorism have always kept a tight grip on the pursestrings. They didn’t give Nakoula enough money for that movie.

I guess the King of Saudi Arabia wouldn’t allot too much for espionage, so she’s going broke.

Maybe that’ll change when and if he’s King. In the meantime Qatar is willing to give more, since only a big alliance can protect Qatar.

Of course Jill Kelley is a spendthrift, so there’s that. She may not have realized she was a spy – she thought probably everything was due to her charm. And she became a victim.

Let me explain some thing. I’m beginning to figure this out.

It is becoming clear that the (initial?) e-mails were not sent to Kelley but were about Kelley and were sent to numerous members of the military.

It’s just that Gen Allen sent her a copy of the one he got and she started the investigation. The enemies of Petraeus/moles had probably either not expected the investigation would be triggered that way or they were waiting for one to copied to her and for her to do it.

If she understood what she was doing, Prince Bandar owes her a lot: she got rid of a CIA Director he didn’t like.

All the bad emails have been attributed to Paula Broadwell (although the New York Times was careful to use the words “reputed author) I don’t think that’s true at all.

They probably printed out every file in Jill Kelley’s computer, not just e-mails between her and gen Allen.

They were sent to the Pentagon – maybe to prevent an espionage investigation if they truly are only going to look at the emails between her and Gen Allen.

This really comes from today’s papers.

I can deal with 7 lies, 2 truth and a half truth but if truths are not mixed in, it’s very hard. It’s not just me – that’s what Patterico wnted those emails from John Reid.

Senators John McCain (R-Ariz) Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H) held a press conference this morning calling for a select Joint House Senate committee be appointed to look into Benghazi.

McCain said he knows there would be opposition. Administrations always oppose committees, there was opposition to the Watergate hearings and Iran -contra and the creation of the 9/11 commission, which both he and Sen Graham were involved in creating.

I think they also indicated they would oppose the confirmation of Susan Rice as Secretary of State as things stand now at least.

One reporter tried to say that possible leaking of e-mails was more important, and McCain indicated that was a really dumb question. He’s not buying the idea Jill Kelley is the scandal and Benghazi is the squirrel.

At his press conference President Obama said it was unfair to blame her for communicating an intelligence briefing she had and if anyone is to blame, it’s him.

Sen McCain says that Obama thinks they are picking on people he doesn’t understand how serious a thing this is.

141. Dave- FBI demanded she give back classified documents “taken from secure buildings”- she consented to them going to her home and snatching them back.

However, they were there for four hours so I guess she wasn’t really specific about where she left them.

Comment by SarahW — 11/14/2012 @ 12:10 pm

1. There’s a reason those documents were kept in secure facilities. To protect the information. Her house or laptop are not secure facilities. So there is no way to rule out compromise.

2. Of course she agreed to give them back. They don’t belong to her. Essentially she committed theft of government property.

3. I’ve read she has a security clearance because she is a reserve intelligence officer. Then she has to be the dumbest person I’ve ever heard of with a security clearance. First of all she removed the documents. So she mishandled the classified and it must assumed she compromised the information. So she violated the rules of INFOSEC or information security. Second, she doesn’t apparently know that a clearance doesn’t give her access in the first place. It’s a combination of clearance and need to know. Working as a freelance writer on a biography of Petraeus does not give her a need to know.

I have to wonder if Petraeus shared her cavalier attitude toward security. I realize he’s supposed to be a legend, but I wouldn’t put it past him. This operation in Benghazi, which we all know now was essentially a CIA operation disguising itself none too well as a diplomatic mission, strikes me as boneheaded. It seems it was the worst kept secret in Benghazi; everyone new of the “secret” CIA operation. The salafists knew it so well they had their mortars dialed in to score direct hits on it.

But then I’ve never been impressed with CIA fieldcraft. The Plame affair was also dumb. You can’t protect a “NOC” when the CIA assigns her to CIA HQ. It wouldn’t surprise me if Plame was commuting back and forth to Langley while wearing her security badge.

We are ruled by clowns. No wonder everyone from Hugo Chavez to Vladimir Putin was cheering Obama’s reelection.

DOVER, Fla. — The F.B.I. agent who helped start the investigation that led to the resignation of David H. Petraeus as C.I.A. director is a “hard-charging” veteran counterterrorism investigator who used his command of French in investigating the foiled “millennium” terrorist plot in 1999, colleagues said on Wednesday.

I don’t know. I think maybe we ought to revisit his work on that case.

And what was this about, maybe? (I just read about it so I am not prepared to give an opinion, but I’d like to know if this checks out as a random attack)

In May 2010, after he had moved to the Tampa field office, Mr. Humphries was attacked outside the gate of MacDill Air Force Base by a disturbed knife-wielding man. He fatally shot the man, and the shooting was later ruled to be an appropriate use of force, according to bureau records and colleagues.

If he shot the man dead, and there were no witnesses, how do we know how it actually went down?

Mr. Berger took issue with news media reports that have said his client sent shirtless pictures of himself to Ms. Kelley.

After watching today’s presser which included his “chivalrous” response and angry defense of Ambassador Rice: “she had absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi- she was just trotted out to five morning shows to parrot the fake intel info she was given“, I had to delay dinner for an hour to give me time to settle my stomach. I was so hoping we’d be watching a different president doing press conferences soon. Apparently enough others found him trustworthy, inspirational, and transformational. But that man in the White House insults my intelligence each time he goes before the camera. Bleeech.

“angry defense of Ambassador Rice: “she had absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi- she was just trotted out to five morning shows to parrot the fake intel info she was given“”

elissa – Did I miss the natural follow up question to Obama of why Ambassador Rice was chosen to go on five national news shows to explain what happened in Benghazi if she did not know anything about it rather than an administration representative who did know something about it? I might have blinked or something.

“angry defense of Ambassador Rice: “she had absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi- she was just trotted out to five morning shows to parrot the fake intel info she was given“”

elissa – Did I miss the natural follow up question to Obama of why Ambassador Rice was chosen to go on five national news shows to explain what happened in Benghazi if she did not know anything about it rather than an administration representative who did know something about it? I might have blinked or something.

she was just trotted out to five morning shows to parrot the fake intel info she was given“,

The only thing is, he won’t admit it was fake (or even bad) intelligence that nobody involved in analyzing intelligence should ever have accepted.

Although he says he said it before, he seems to be saying for the first time that he sent her.

As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me.

Now, it wouldn’t be right to go after him, unless he was he one who sent her, or concurred in sending her, not just “the White House.”

I think maybe he has bought into the excuse that neither he nor anybody else at the White House properly understood their briefings.

That explains “her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her”

she was just trotted out to five morning shows to parrot the fake intel info she was given“,

The only thing is, he won’t admit it was fake (or even bad) intelligence that nobody involved in analyzing intelligence should ever have accepted.

Although he says he said it before, he seems to be saying for the first time that he sent her.

As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me.

Now, it wouldn’t be right to go after him, unless he was he one who sent her, or concurred in sending her, not just “the White House.”

I think maybe he has bought into the excuse that neither he nor anybody else at the White House properly understood their briefings.

That explains “her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her”

I liked the look on Preezy’s face when he was talking about taxes and the budget. He basically said that if you don’t believe me, check the math, it adds up, I really know the math on this. And then the ‘Oops OhShit!’ look on his face as he remembered that he admitted in a TV add that he has trouble with 7th grade math. Too bad that I wasn’t able to be there and shout out, ” But Mr. President, you’ve admitted that 7th grade math is too hard for you and government budgets are harder than that.”

daley and JD–well you know he hadn’t done a presser in a while and he’s just won re-election so I imagine the reporters were kinda all choked up. You know–like in awe– to the extent of being awestruck in the presence of president Barack McAwesome. That state of euphoria prolly just made it hard for them to remember why they were sitting there and is why they neglected to ask any what would seem to have been natural follow up questions.

162.The other day I was wondering why lil’ Ms. Roundheels was hiring a high-priced defense attorney.

Reckon that explains it.

Now, I’m wondering who she’s going to have as defense counsel if she gets brought up on Article 134 charges? Guess the army will let us know about that one.

Comment by Dave Surls — 11/14/2012 @ 5:27 pm

I doubt they’ll recall her to active duty. Unless whe purloined the documents while drilling as a reserve intelligence officer (double meaning intended) or during her two weeks of active duty training.

If so, then you can add Article 92 to the charges. Failure to obey an order or regulation.

There are regs about safeguarding classified information, just in case anyone was wondering.

During his Wednesday press conference, President Obama made three comments on foreign policy that deserve attention, because they are inadvertently revealing.

First, when asked about the Petraeus scandal, he replied “I have no evidence at this point, from what I’ve seen, that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security.”

The assumption we all make, and that the law makes, is that unauthorized disclosure of classified information is wrong. Because Mr. Obama is a lawyer who prides himself on his mastery of English, we have to assume he deliberately acknowledged here that classified information has been disclosed. He just doesn’t want to admit it flat out, or admit that what was disclosed was would have a “negative impact” on national security.” Watch for future news, then, about disclosure of classified information.

Because of course if it’s classified compromising it by definition does damage to national security.

How much damage determines the classification level. You start off with mere damage. It goes up from there to basically “if the wrong people see this it’s ‘game over,’ man” kind of damage.

I won’t quote all of the rest of it. Just this:

Add up these comments and it seems the president’s second-term foreign policy will not change at all. Never admit error, obfuscate, change the subject, talk and talk and talk, “engage,” and claim all is well. Mr. Obama noted that in Syria the situation has “deteriorated” since he demanded that Assad go — in the summer of 2011. That’s the truest thing he said: There are now 40,000 dead, 400,000 refugees, many more displaced persons, and a really dangerous jihadi presence. As Mr. Obama might say, that’s not optimal — and he remains unable to draw the connection between his own policies and those disastrous developments.

I believe he’s able to draw the connection. Just unwilling to do so publicly. In great part because the damage he’s doing isn’t unintended at all. After all, why would President I Can Be More Flexible After The Election worry about disclosing classified information when he intends to do exactly that by passing along US missile data to the Russians?

I’m not going to link because of the site problems but Business Insider and the Tampa newspaper have gobs of stuff on “the Lebanese twins”. They seem to be bad bad news and that’s going to end up being “the story” I think. Paula and General P having a little fun while she tried to sleep her way to the NSA title and he tried to stay young and virile looks pretty tame and healty when put up next to the myterious presence and strange gigs the twins had going with the mil community at MacDill AFB. Wow.

Natalie Khawam, the sister, apparently spends summers up in New England and hangs out with Senators Kerry and Whitehouse. She’s been to the Sheldon Whitehouse family clambake.

She also, according to court papers when she filed for bankruptcy, got a personal loan from a RI lawyer/high powered Democratic fundraiser named Gerry Harrington. Ready for the amount? For $300,000.

This isn’t a love triangle; it’s a love octogon. And I don’t know how these two broke women (apparently Jill Kelley and her hubby are getting sued by creditors and their two properties are being foreclosed upon) end up hobnobbing with people at the highest levels of government.

Maybe if these people weren’t trying to be all “Keeping up with the Kardashians” a couple of ex-SEALs and career diplomatic personnel wouldn’t have been killed in Benghazi.

Maybe if ISAF Commander GEN. Allen wasn’t writing 20,000-30,000 emails to one of the Kardashian sisters he might have paid attention to security at his ISAF bases.

Like I dunno, Camp Bastion.

McCain was exactly right (and I so rarely say anything like that) when he ripped that reporter for asking a really stupid question. You can’t compare this distraction to the killing of four Americans.

Still, the headwork demonstrated here makes me seriously doubt people like Petraeus should be put in charge of a covert operation.

Well, that and the fact it was anything but covert as far as many of the residents of Benghazi were concerned obviously. Just like his affair wasn’t even though they tried.

156. Sandy’s purloined documents involved keeping from the 9/11 commission an after action report on the millennium plot, that would revealed that he and Bill Clinton’s claims to have done something that resulted in the capture of the Algerian Ahmed Ressem (sp?) when he tried to cross the Canadian border with explosives.

He was caught by accident by a Customs Inspector who noticed he acted in a suspicious way – not because of some imaginary alert that Clinton and Berger had issued. They told other kinds of lies too, to explain failures, but this one was of a false success.

The thing about Ressem is that, although he pleaded guilty, at a certain point, he stopped co-operating with the FBI because he was being treated very miserably to claim. So we never found out who his sponsors were. Capturing him didn’t actually end the plot, but all the other people involved got scared off, so no attempt was made to explode anything in New York, for instance.

Now it turns out this Humphries was involved in his interrogation, apparently as an interpreter.

American and Middle Eastern investigators say they believe that the suspect, Abu Zubaydah, was also in contact with Algerians who have been charged in a separate attempt to bomb unspecified targets in the United States in December. It is not clear whether Zubaydah played an active role in that plot, these officials say….

According to news reports, Broadwell had a substantial amount of classified information. If true it must be remembered that she didn’t need Petraeus to get it. She could have had other sources; if she’s as big a name dropper as the “Tampa Kardashians” she might have used her relationship with Petraeus to develop them. But more simply as a reserve intel officer she would have had access on her own. Bradley Manning didn’t need high-placed help.

It really does appear more and more this whole thing is just a diversion and Petraeus’ ouster has more to do with Benghazi. It fits the Obama admin’s M.O. After all, they did at first try to blame that video. They did for weeks. And they were tripping all over themselves to claim the Benghazi attack had nothing, nothing, to do with Obama’s policies. That was practically the first thing out of Carney’s mouth. Because of course that was the one thing we could be sure of, right? Because all of Obama’s policies are wonderful and perfect.

Then when their story fell apart they blamed Intel. It sure seemed like they were looking for a fall guy.

I don’t think they used the affair to blackmail Petraeus. Just to try to discredit him. It’s got Axelrod’s fingerprints; that’s how they got rid of Obama’s Senatorial rivals. Plus when they’re guilty as hell they lay down a lot of false trails as a diversion. Knowing that their sycophantic press would rather follow those even if they know they’re false trails. It sells papers, and allows them to claim these things are just so complicated we may never know the truth.

But just like Carney indignantly states you can’t blame Obama’s policies you can’t, they’ll claim, Obama for being in the dark about just about everything going on in his administration.

148. Jill Kelley’s “diplomatic” status came from South Korea (she would act as a liason between Tampa area businessmen and South Korea) but she got it only three months ago, so this could not have encouraged her to break the law befrore that.

“And they were tripping all over themselves to claim the Benghazi attack had nothing, nothing, to do with Obama’s policies.”

Steve57 – What’s so hard to understand? What happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was a spontaneous premeditated and planned attack in response to the Cairo demonstrations against that heinous video for which the Cairo embassy has already apologized and Clinton and Obama have repeatedly condemned.

Obama will tell us exactly what happened after the investigation into his specific instructions to the military, intelligence and diplomatic sides of his administration is papered over and finished. Again, not rocket surgery.

189. Steve57 – What’s so hard to understand? What happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was a spontaneous premeditated and planned attack in response to the Cairo demonstrations against that heinous video for which the Cairo embassy has already apologized and Clinton and Obama have repeatedly condemned.

Comment by daleyrocks — 11/15/2012 @ 1:25 pm

But, but, the President says he called it terrorism the very next day. And Candy Crowley backed him up when he told her to go to the transcript.

Makes it kinda sorta difficult to ‘splain how Ms. Rice could go on 5 Sunday talk shows 5 days later and say it was a spontaneous attack over a video and how that was the “best understanding” of the intel at the time. Dontcha think?

Steve57 – Well, I’m trying to keep an open mind and from reading Sammy’s comments attempting to develop and enhance my ability to think in pretzel logic and fantasy.

The problem most people seem to be struggling with is an apparent conflict in a premeditated, planned attack being executed on an opportunistic basis like that provided by the distraction of the demonstrations in Cairo. Personally, I don’t struggle with that conflict.

The other part is that Administration just needs to come clean and make clear that the reference to the Cairo demonstration it had was based on an intercepted cell phone conversation between two terrorist groups and that no actual demonstration took place in Benghazi. That is, unless something new has surfaced which contradicts the prior sentence.

“But, but, the President says he called it terrorism the very next day. And Candy Crowley backed him up when he told her to go to the transcript.”

Steve57 – That was pretty funny when he claimed that, because his words do not exactly back him up. I think he was misremembering and confusing what he said in the Rose Garden with what he said to Steve Kroft in the clip that CBS lost for six weeks or so.

So it looks now like no chin Holder’s staying on. If liar Lurch is nominated for defense Sec., and talk show queen Rice is put up for Sec of State, and the Pubbies can realistically only block one for confirmation– which one should it be?

Susan Rice concerns me far less, to the point of whatever, than our president essentially having admitted that her intelligence came from him. Saying that Graham and McCain need to take it up with him because he sent her out there with “intel we had at the time” cooks his goose. Rice just fell in line. She’s the problem in as much as all climbers. But the promotion is hers.

Mr. Petraeus had struggled to win over CIA employees, who initially viewed him with suspicion because he was a high-profile former general accustomed to the hierarchical respect conferred within the military. The CIA, by contrast, is a less hierarchical institution.

“That was a big change for him,” said Michael Hurley, a former agency officer. “Authority comes with rank in the military, but CIA directors have to earn the respect of agency officers.”

Agency officers saw his CIA office as much more regimented compared with the relative ease with which they could stop in to see top agency officials under Leon Panetta, Mr. Petraeus’s predecessor. Mr. Petraeus appeared to be surprised when much younger analysts would disagree with a point he made, a former official said.

Could it be because he was right and they were wrong, and the points some chooise to disagree with were obvious or near obvious truths, and the disagreements based on political correctness or maybe some kind of stupid belief that had permeated the agency?

More:

Mr. Petraeus’s attempts to connect with agency officers over running—he extended an invitation to exercise with him as long as they could keep up with his six- to seven-minute miles—often fell flat as many analysts and operatives weren’t as athletic.

On more substantive issues, agency officers sometimes chafed under what they saw as Mr. Petraeus’s more controlling style, the former official said. In his efforts to more closely align the CIA’s drone program, aimed at killing terror suspects, with diplomatic sensitivities, Mr. Petraeus sometimes clashed with the agency’s Counterterrorism Center chief, with Mr. Petraeus denying requests to strike a particular target.

Maybe Petraeus wasn’t convinced they was the right target? And diplomatic senstivities – that means it was somebody the United States was dealing with.

Could it be there were Taliban in Afghanistan trying to negotiate and they suddenly got on the target list as the chief people responsible and
got killed – because they were out of the control of Pakistan’s rogue military intelligence agency?

Well he’s dealing with both O’Brien and Charles Blow, so one loses brain cells right there, the talking point, is that Susan should get a pass, because Condi did, in describing a situation that was yet to happen,

How is it that he doesn’t stop her right at the start, by challenging her premise? Condi Rice truthfully reported what the administration believed, with good reason, to be true. Susan Rice told a story that the administration knew was false but had decided to spread for political reasons. That is the key difference. If Condi Rice’s story later turned out to be incorrect, that’s nobody’s fault. It doesn’t reflect badly on her and doesn’t affect her fitness to serve. Susan Rice’s story was a fib; if she personally knew it then she’s unfit to be confirmed, and if she didn’t then she’s also unfit to be confirmed.

Said one former senior U.S. intelligence official who attended, “It’s mind-boggling that she could be so reckless as to show up at high-profile events like this, shortly after learning the FBI was investigating their affair.”

Really? Like it’s not mind-boggling that the other person involved in said affair was so reckless to not only show up, but gives a speech too? Whose the reckless hypocrite here?
The scarlet letter A is still alive and well in our post-discriminatory society.

196. “But, but, the President says he called it terrorism the very next day. And Candy Crowley backed him up when he told her to go to the transcript.”

Steve57 – That was pretty funny when he claimed that, because his words do not exactly back him up. I think he was misremembering and confusing what he said in the Rose Garden with what he said to Steve Kroft in the clip that CBS lost for six weeks or so.

Comment by daleyrocks — 11/15/2012 @ 2:23 pm

When Rice says the video story was her “best understanding” of the intel I look forward to her explaining how could be given this:

OPERATOR: The next question is from the line of Brad Klapper with AP. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, yes. You described several incidents you had with groups of men, armed men. What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion.

Also, Susan Rice kept saying the talking points came “from intel.”

I understand Sammy thinks when I talk about intel, he thinks I mean CIA. Because, of course, CIA must be the only intel agency in the US.

1. When she tosses around the word “intel” she clearly doesn’t realize DoS is part of the intel community.

2. If she believed those talking points, she clearly didn’t know what here own department had to say. The video? “That was not our conclusion.”

3. To still buy that story about the video six days after the Benghazi attack you’d have to be a credulous idiot.

Do we really want someone who has worked at such a high profile job at DoS that she’s been given a cabinet position, yet still doesn’t know (I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt she wasn’t lying) that her own cabinet department had a position that was not what those talking points that were fed her said, a woman who isn’t aware of the intelligence function of her department, and is a gullible fool as SecState?

As the Preezy said, she didn’t have anything to do with Benghazi. Precisely. That’s why this useful tool was picked.

I don’t see that as an unimportant side consideration, though I wouldn’t let it distract me from the central purpose of these hearings. But it should produce something to keep in the back pocket to pull out if she ever has hearings on her nomination.

But, but, the President says he called it terrorism the very next day. And Candy Crowley backed him up when he told her to go to the transcript.

Well, as Jay Carney said, even a spontaneous attack that kills 4 Americans including the Ambassador to a country is still terrorism, and who wants to argue with that?

I do. The USG has an official definition of terrorism.

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

“[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.”

Terrorism is a matter of intent. Ergo a “crime of passion” such as “spontaneous movie criticism” doesn’t fit the definition of terrorism.

Makes it kinda sorta difficult to ‘splain how Ms. Rice could go on 5 Sunday talk shows 5 days later and say it was a spontaneous attack over a video

It’s easy to understand. On September 12, the CIA had not received or processed very much Sooper Sekrit intelligence about the Benghazi attack.

and how that was the “best understanding” of the intel at the time. Dontcha think?

You dare to question the judgement of CIA analysts?

Petreaus did, and look what happened to him.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 11/15/2012 @ 3:58 pm

Sammmy, first of all as I said in my previous post “intel” and “CIA” are not synonymous.

States Bureau of Intelligence and Research is also intel.

But, and again as I’ve said earlier (but not on this thread), the answer to the question “what happened in Benghazi” is not a matter of intelligence. It involves operational information.

The answers to the questions “why” or “who” involves intelligence. But what happened isn’t, and the Diplomatic Security people communicating the the DS agent in the TOC in the consulate in Benghazi knew what happened. That there was a coordinated assault on the compound and no protest was involved.

2. If she believed those talking points, she clearly didn’t know what here own department had to say. The video? “That was not our conclusion.”

I think that’s true. It probably didn’t dawn on her that the position of her department could be different. (That there had never been a preliminary demonstration in Benghazi of any kind)

The CIA anyway is supposed to truymp the State Department when it comes to intelligence.

3. To still buy that story about the video six days after the Benghazi attack you’d have to be a credulous idiot.

Probably correct. Whatever made you think she was not a credulous idiot?

Do we really want someone who has worked at such a high profile job at DoS that she’s been given a cabinet position, yet still doesn’t know (I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt she wasn’t lying) that her own cabinet department had a position that was not what those talking points that were fed her said, a woman who isn’t aware of the intelligence function of her department, and is a gullible fool as SecState?

No. But then there also be a bunch of other people we also might not want confirmed to high positions, like say, well, James Clapper.

Steve 57: But, but, the President says he called it terrorism the very next day. And Candy Crowley backed him up when he told her to go to the transcript.

SF: Well, as Jay Carney said, even a spontaneous attack that kills 4 Americans including the Ambassador to a country is still terrorism, and who wants to argue with that?

Steve57:

I do. The USG has an official definition of terrorism.

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

“[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.”

Most of the time when the terrorists have demands, I think the demands are just a cover story to hide either their motivations, or sponsors, or true objectives, and not serious at all and claims of responsibility are only made to deceive.

There were no known objectives of the September 11th attacks, so they wouldn’t fit within the official definition of terrorism. I can figure out a few ideas (like diminishing the position of the United States in the world, and causing rebels in Afghanistan to give up hope of aid) but thdey still wouldn’t fit wihin the definition of terrorism.

I would define terrorism as an act of genocide or a war crime carried out by an organized group, that is too limited in scale to have even the remotest hopes of accomplishing by itself its apparent objective.

These are the (orally released but the written text was not released at the time) talking points at the end of the week that contained Sept. 11, 2012 as read out loud by Senator Dianne Feinstein at or after a closed door hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee and published in at the end of an article by Eric Schmitt on page A10
of the Saturday, November 17, 2012 New York Times:

“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex.

There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be
evaluated.

The investigation is ongoing, and the U.S. government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.”